http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5647-3905
Figures
Abstract
Purpose
People with mental illnesses are at a significantly greater risk of police arrest than the general population. This pattern of arrests has been associated with a phenomenon referred to as the criminalization of mental illness such that people with mental illnesses are inappropriately diverted to the criminal justice system rather than to treatment. To decrease arrests of people with mental illnesses experiencing a crisis, pre-booking diversion programs have been developed to intervene at the point of police contact. This systematic literature review examines the state of knowledge regarding the effectiveness of police-based pre-booking diversion programs by addressing the question, “What is the evidence for the effectiveness of police-based pre-booking diversion programs in reducing arrests (i.e., reducing criminalization) of people with mental illnesses?”
Methods
Systematic literature searches of seven databases were performed during May 2017. The searches sought to identify studies that examined the effectiveness of pre-booking diversion programs in decreasing arrests. A multi-phase screening process was completed independently by two pairs of reviewers as well as a risk of bias review.
Results
A total of 2,750 unique citations were identified. Of these, 4 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria; all were from the US. Three of the studies examined the effectiveness of Crisis Intervention Teams and one study looked at a mobile crisis program. Two of the studies were at moderate risk of bias and two at high risk.
Conclusions
This review indicates that this line of inquiry is still developing. There are a number of gaps yet to be filled. The current evidence for the effectiveness of police-based pre-booking diversion programs in reducing arrests (i.e., reducing criminalization) of people with mental illnesses is limited. However, these studies indicate there is moderate evidence that these programs increase linkages to mental health services.
Citation: Dewa CS, Loong D, Trujillo A, Bonato S (2018) Evidence for the effectiveness of police-based pre-booking diversion programs in decriminalizing mental illness: A systematic literature review. PLoS ONE 13(6): e0199368. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199368
Editor: Iratxe Puebla, Public Library of Science, UNITED KINGDOM
Received: July 18, 2016; Accepted: June 6, 2018; Published: June 19, 2018
Copyright: © 2018 Dewa et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All the data that were used in our manuscript can be found in the body of the manuscript.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
The intersection between the justice and the healthcare systems ensnares a significant proportion of people with severe mental illness. Between 25–28% of people with mental illnesses have been arrested [1, 2]. Compared to people without mental illnesses, those with mental illnesses have significantly more police interactions [3]. For example, research from the US estimates that 7–10% of police contacts are with people with severe mental illnesses [4]. A Canadian study found that those with a mental illness were twice as likely to be arrested after controlling for the severity of the offence [5]. One of the primary consequences of these interactions is that people with mental illnesses are more likely to be arrested than the general population [6]. This pattern of arrests of people with mental illnesses has been associated with a phenomenon referred to as the criminalization of mental illness or the inappropriate diversion of people with mental illnesses to the criminal justice system rather than to treatment [7]. The criminalization has been attributed in part to barriers that police often encounter with the healthcare system such as long waiting periods in the emergency room and hospital admission refusals [8]. Because the criminal justice system appears to be more systematic and predictable than the healthcare system, police rely on it first rather than treatment [8].
Yet, treatment can be an alternative to arrests for people with mental illnesses. This is the case due to police discretion with regard to the outcomes of contacts [9]. For 12% of people with mental illnesses, police were involved in their pathway to service access [2]. But, for treatment rather than arrests to occur, it has been suggested that several conditions are required. These include increased training of police to handle crisis situations, increased coordination between police and mental health professionals, enhanced mental health services after arrest, and a move towards a treatment philosophy [8]. This translates into providing officers with supports to effectively deal with the often volatile crisis situations to which they are called [4]. It also requires linkages to mental health services that allow for direct referrals with no refusal policies [10]. In this way, arrests can decrease and the criminalization of mental illnesses can be addressed.
To decrease arrests of people with mental illnesses who are in crisis, criminal diversion programs have been developed to intervene at the point of police contact [10]. These programs are referred to as pre-booking or pre-charge diversion programs. They focus on police response and decision making; their goal is to redirect people with mental illnesses who have committed minor offences from arrest into mental health treatment [11].
Two primary types of police-based pre-booking responses have been described [12, 13]. One response uses a specialized police response in which specially trained officers respond to mental health crises and act as the link to mental health services [12]. Crisis Intervention Teams (CITs) are one of the most widely adopted types of specialized police response interventions [14, 15]. Another type of police-based response involves mental health professionals who respond to calls with officers as well as provide phone consultations to officers when questions arise in the field [12].
Purpose of the systematic literature review
The purpose of this systematic literature review is to examine the state of knowledge regarding the effectiveness of police-based pre-booking diversion programs in addressing the criminalization of mental illnesses. We focus on police-based pre-booking diversion programs because the police are among the first to respond to a call [7]. Thus, police contact serves as the entry into the criminal justice system. One way to decrease entry is to intervene at the first contact point. Hence, we focused on police-based interventions.
We address the question, “What is the evidence for the effectiveness of police-based pre-booking diversion programs in reducing arrests (i.e., reducing criminalization) of people with mental illnesses?” As justice systems around the world seek effective interventions to increase treatment and decrease arrests [16], answers to this question may help inform decisions about adopting these interventions. The results of this review can also point to gaps in the literature and areas for future inquiry.
Methods
This systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [17]. Because this review relies exclusively on published articles and did not involve primary data collection, approval from a Research Ethics Board was not required.
Information sources
Seven electronic databases were searched:
- PsycINFO (an index of journal articles, books, chapters, and dissertations in psychology, social sciences, behavioral sciences, and health sciences)
- Medline (an index of biomedical research and clinical sciences journal articles)
- Medline In-Process (an index of biomedical research and clinical sciences journal articles awaiting to be indexed into Medline)
- Embase (an index of biomedical research, and abstracts from biomedical, drug and medical device conferences)
- Web of Science (an index of journal articles, editorially selected books and conference proceedings in life sciences and biomedical research)
- Scopus (an index of journal articles, books, and conference proceedings in science, technology, medicine, social science, and arts and humanities)
- Criminal Justice Abstracts (an index of abstracts in criminal justice and criminology).
With a professional health science librarian (SB), search strategies were developed and tailored to each database and executed during May 2017 (S1 File). The Ovid platform was used to search PsycINFO, Medline, Medline In-Process, and Embase. Web of Science was searched using the Thomson Reuters search interface and Scopus was searched using the Elsevier platform. Criminal Justice Abstracts was searched using the EBSCO search platform. Across all databases, search results were limited to peer-reviewed articles published in English language journals but were not restricted by publication year.
Study selection
To identify studies for inclusion, search results were screened using a three-stage screening process. Stage 1 involved screening article titles. Articles that passed Stage 1 were assessed for relevance based on their abstracts (Stage 2). In Stage 3, the remaining articles were screened based on their full text content. At the end of Stage 3, the reference lists of all articles that remained were hand searched. Articles that were identified through the hand search process were subjected to the three-stage screening process.
The entire multi-phase screening process was completed independently by two pairs of reviewers (CSD and AT, CSD and DL). The inter-rater reliability corrected for chance [18] between CSD & AT and CSD & DL was κ = 0.78 and κ = 0.96, respectively. Where there were inconsistent ratings between the two reviewers, the discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached.
Eligibility criteria
For the purposes of this review, we include police-based pre-booking diversion programs defined by the elements described by Borum and Franz [11] such that the intervention: (1) focuses on police response and decision making, (2) has the goal of diverting people with mental illnesses who have committed minor offences from arrest into mental health treatment, and (3) involves a collaboration with mental health treatment providers.
To identify relevant studies, the following eligibility criteria were used:
- The study reports on a police-based pre-booking diversion intervention
- The study’s intervention involves a collaboration with the police and mental health providers
- The study’s intervention is initiated by police contact
- The study’s intervention responds to a crisis or emergency involving a person with a mental illness (including people with concurrent disorders)
- The study’s intervention provides services to address crises (i.e., it is time limited)
- The study outcomes involve arrests
- The study reports on adults (18 years or older) with mental illnesses who are in the community (including people with concurrent disorders)
- The study is original research
- The study uses a comparable comparison group for usual practice
Studies were excluded if they looked:
- Exclusively at people with substance use disorders
- Exclusively at people who were violent
Risk of bias assessment
A 7-item checklist was used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. This checklist was adapted from Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [19] and Dewa et al.’s [20] Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. It considers the following:
- Adequate sequence generation (group assignments of participants are based on chance)
- Allocation concealment (schedule of random assignments are kept concealed from staff involved in study enrollment)
- Blinding (participants and study staff are masked of the knowledge of which intervention was received)
- Incomplete outcome data (there is no significant difference between groups who withdraw from the study)
- Selective reporting (based on the study outcomes, all study outcomes are complete and not selectively reported)
- Intervention adherence (a process is in place to ensure fidelity to the intervention model)
- Recruitment strategy (recruitment process is open to all potential participants who meet the study eligibility criteria)
There were three possible ratings for each criterion: -1 (if there was a high risk of bias), +1 (if there was a low risk of bias) or 0 (if there was insufficient information to assess risk). Steps were not taken to contact the authors of studies to gather additional information or potential related information. Articles with a calculated score of less than 50% were considered to have a high risk of bias. Scores between 50% and 79% were considered to have moderate risk. Studies with a score of 80% or greater were considered to have low risk of bias.
The risk of bias assessment results were also used as part of the criteria to conduct a meta-analysis. To be included in the meta-analysis, a study had to have been assessed as either having a low or moderate risk of bias. Two of the four studies met this criterion. A second criterion was that the models that were being studied needed to be similar. There were significant differences in the designs of the models examined in the two remaining studies. One was an intensive training model to equip officers in the field. The other was based on consultations provided to officers from mental health specialists. Thus, the decision was made to forgo conducting a meta-analysis.
Data abstraction
Two reviewers (CSD and DL) abstracted the data from each of the articles by filling in table shells containing headings. The study description data included: (1) Type of experimental intervention and the comparison intervention, (2) Numbers of participants in each study arm, (3) Study period, (4) Type of study design used, (5) Number and timing of data collection points, and (6) Types of outcomes measured. The study results data that were collected included: (1) Statistical parameter calculated and the values as well as the measure of uncertainty if indicated. Disagreements were discussed until consensus was reached.
Results
Article inclusion and exclusion results
The electronic literature search resulted in the identification of 2,750 unique citations (Fig 1). At the end of the title review, 2,420 citations were excluded; this left 330 articles for abstract review. During the abstract review, another 236 citations were excluded; this left 94 articles for full-text review. Reasons for article exclusions at full text review were: (1) not a pre-booking diversion program (n = 22), (2) the study did not examine relevant outcome (n = 15), (3) it was not original research (n = 40) and (4) no comparison group (n = 12). After the full-text review, 4 articles remained and their reference lists were hand searched for relevant studies. The hand search identified six additional citations. But, all were excluded at full text review.
Risk of bias assessment results
In terms of potential risk of bias, our assessment identified 2 of the 4 studies to have a high risk of bias and 2 to have moderate risk. Fig 2 shows the potential bias for these studies. None of the studies were randomized controlled trials; all used quasi-experimental designs (S2 File). Because of the nature of the intervention, none of them could conceal allocation. The studies offered few details regarding either the characteristics of the sample participants compared to the group from which they were drawn or the missing data. The studies did not indicate whether there was a check for intervention adherence during the study.
Overview of the studies
There were four studies that met the inclusion criteria (Table 1). All of the studies were from the US; two from Georgia, one from Ohio, and one from Illinois.
Description of the study populations
All four of the studies were limited to selected policing districts. In two of the studies, officers were recruited to participate [9, 21]. In Compton et al.’s [21] study, officers were asked to record information about their 30 encounters with people with serious mental illness, alcohol or drug problem, or developmental disability during a 6-week period. Identification of people with the conditions of interest was dependent on the officer. In contrast, Watson et al. [9] interviewed officers about their experiences over the past month.
Two studies depended on retrospective administrative data; these data included dispatch records, police notes, public safety records, and intervention program records [22, 23]. Teller et al. [23] looked at mental disturbance calls that were identified by police dispatchers. Scott [22] focused on calls related to psychiatric emergencies; it was not clear how the psychiatric emergencies were identified–by the caller, by dispatch, or by the officer.
Interventions and comparison groups
Two primary types of interventions were examined: CIT [9, 21, 23] and a mobile crisis program [22]. The studies that included CIT programs were based on the Memphis model [15] offering 40 hours of training that focus on officer and consumer safety, proper referral to those in crisis, and de-escalation skills training [15]. Two of the CIT interventions studied noted modifications to training to reflect the context in which the training was being conducted [9, 23]. The comparisons for these CIT programs were either the outcomes related to pre-intervention [23] and/or groups who had not received CIT training [9, 21, 23].
In Scott’s [22] study, the mobile crisis program was designed to respond to 911 psychiatric emergency calls with the goal of stabilizing people in psychiatric crisis in the least restrictive environment possible. The team was comprised of two police officers and one psychiatric nurse available seven days a week from 3 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. Because there was only one team and it was not available 24-hours a day, there were some 911 psychiatric emergency calls to which the mobile crisis program did not respond. These calls formed the comparison group for the mobile crisis team intervention group.
Outcomes
Three of the four studies that looked at the differences in arrest rates between the intervention and comparison groups did not find significantly different results [9, 22, 23] (Table 2). However, Compton et al.’s [21] study of CIT did report significant differences in favor of the CIT group. In addition, all four studies consistently reported significant differences in the rate of referrals to mental health services of the intervention versus comparison group. Referral was more likely in the intervention groups [9, 21–23].
Discussion
Our systematic literature review identified four studies examining the effectiveness of police-based pre-booking diversion programs compared to standard practice. Two of the studies were at moderate risk of bias and two at high risk. These results suggest that one of the main challenges with this type of research is that it is difficult to avoid the risk of bias. The police-based pre-booking interventions involve either police training or the addition of a mental health team. It is difficult to blind study participants to either. It also seems to be difficult to identify objective sources of information about psychiatric crises and factors associated with the decision process regarding arrests, release, and treatment. This can be attributed to the fact that because it is police-based, information is not necessarily collected about a suspect’s health status or other factors that are not associated with law enforcement. This creates difficulties when trying to identify a comparison group and information about the comparison.
Among the included studies, there were two intervention models tested: CIT and mobile crisis. Both types of interventions have the objective of appropriately diverting people with mental illnesses from the criminal justice system into mental health services. The results of the studies suggest that compared to usual practice, CIT and mobile crisis can significantly increase the probability of people accessing mental health services. However, the effects of these programs on arrest rates are equivocal.
These results suggest that these pre-booking police-based diversion interventions achieve part of their objective; they divert people into care. But, effectiveness in linkages to service seems to be related to a variety of moderating factors. For example, Watson et al. [24] observed that the degree of availability of mental health services is positively associated with diversion into care. They conclude that in communities where mental health resources are accessible, CIT trained officers are more likely to link people to mental health services than are officers who have not been trained. However, service availability was not associated with arrests [24].
Part of reason that the availability of mental health services does not appear to prevent arrests [24] may be related to the nature of reason for the contact. Ritter et al. [25] report that people suspected of illicit drug use or of violence to others are more likely to be taken to jail than to treatment; these two call types account for 12.8% and 18.5% of total police contacts with people with mental illnesses, respectively. This suggests that among people with mental illnesses, there is a group of people demonstrating behaviors that result in arrest. One way to address this could be by broadening the scope of pre-booking intervention to allow for earlier intervention to prevent police contact. As with CIT and mobile crisis programs, earlier intervention also involves mental health services. For example, Earl et al. [26] describe a program called the Neighbourhood Outreach Scheme (NOS) that was designed to pre-empt crises and police contact. In this program, a community psychiatric nurse accepts referrals from police and mental health specialists to follow-up with vulnerable people from the neighborhood who do not meet thresholds for a mental health crisis or criminal intervention. They found a significant decrease in the number of police contacts at 6-month follow-up. This suggests a role for diversion that seeks to prevent the need for police contact by intervening further upstream but still involving a partnership between the police and mental health services.
Future directions
In addition to developing study designs that decrease the risk of bias, it would also be important to understand the barriers to implementing these types of interventions. For example, CIT requires 40 hours of training. That may be too resource intensive for some jurisdictions. If this is the case, it may be important to understand the critical ingredients of the police-based pre-booking programs. In this way, if a region is not able to offer 40 hours of training to all officers, it might be possible to abbreviate the training. In other words, what parts should not be eliminated? In the case of the mobile crisis program, what are the most essential hours for their availability? Are there different types of mental health providers that should be available at the different hours?
In addition, Steadman and Morrissette [27] point out that for these types of programs to be effective, there needs to be mental health community resources to which police can refer people. Furthermore, police should be considered one part of the crisis care continuum. In other words, the context into which these types of programs are introduced are critical. Future research could help in understanding about how to implement these types of programs in environments where resources are scarce.
Finally, there is evidence that training can increase knowledge, decrease negative attitudes towards mental illness, and improve assessment strategies [28]. But, there is less information about whether implicit stigma is affected [28]. This could be important to understand if this is one of factors in the pathways that lead to arrests. If this is the case, implicit stigma could also be a barrier to the effectiveness of these interventions.
Strengths and limitations of the search strategy
Although seven databases were used in the search, articles that did not appear in any of the databases would not have been included in this review. To ensure that we used a sufficiently broad search strategy, we employed broad search terms for each database and hand searched relevant articles.
Another limitation is related to the fact that the search was limited to articles published in English-language journals. Studies that were not published in English would have been excluded and this review and their evidence would not have been considered. Furthermore, the focus on published peer-reviewed also introduced a potential limitation. Our results may be subject to publication bias [29]. That is, there is evidence that non-results are often not published [30]. As such, studies that did not have significant results would not have been included. This means that there may be a group of unpublished studies that indicate certain interventions are not effective. Addressing this would necessitate including gray literature. However, it should also be noted that the quality of the gray literature has been questioned because it is not necessarily subject to critical assessment before it is publically released [31]. Consequently, studies that have not been published may be at risk of being of lower quality.
Conclusions
The evidence on the effectiveness of police-based pre-booking diversion programs in reducing arrests (i.e., reducing criminalization) of people with mental illnesses is limited. In addition, the existing evidence is not strong. There is moderate evidence that these programs increase linkages to mental health services. These results suggest the need for more studies that incorporate research designs that decrease the risk of bias. Preliminary findings also suggest that the contexts in which the intervention studies are conducted are also an important consideration. In the same way that these interventions require collaboration between criminal justice and mental health, addressing the limitations in this literature will require collaborations among criminal justice, mental health and research.
Compliance with ethical standards
References
- 1. Fisher WH, Roy-Bujnowski KM, Grudzinskas AJ Jr., Clayfield JC, Banks SM, Wolff N. Patterns and prevalence of arrest in a statewide cohort of mental health care consumers. Psychiatr Serv. 2006; 57(11): 1623–1628. pmid:17085611
- 2. Livingston JD. Contact between police and people with mental disorders: A review of rates. Psychiatric Services. 2016.
- 3. Hoch JS, Hartford K, Heslop L, Stitt L. Mental Illness and Police Interactions in a Mid-Sized Canadian City: What the Data Do and Do Not Say. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health. 2009; 28(1): 49–66.
- 4. Lord VB, Bjerregaard B. Helping Persons with Mental Illness: Partnerships between Police and Mobile Crisis Units. Victims and Offenders. 2014; 9455–474.
- 5. Charette Y, Crocker AG, Billette I. Police encounters involving citizens with mental illness: use of resources and outcomes. Psychiatr Serv. 2014; 65(4): 511–516. pmid:24337400
- 6. Fisher WH, Simon L, Roy-Bujnowski K, Grudzinskas A, Wolff N, Crockett E, et al. Risk of Arrest Among Public Mental Health Services Recipients and the General Public. Psychiatric Services. 2011; 62(1): 67–72. pmid:21209302
- 7. Lamb HR, Shaner R, Elliott DM, DeCuir WJ Jr., Foltz JT. Outcome for psychiatric emergency patients seen by an outreach police-mental health team. Psychiatr Serv. 1995; 46(12): 1267–1271. pmid:8590113
- 8. Lamb HR, Weinberger LE, Gross BH. Mentally ill persons in the criminal justice system: some perspectives. Psychiatric Quarterly. 2004; 75(2).
- 9. Watson AC, Ottati VC, Morabito M, Draine J, Kerr AN, Angell B. Outcomes of police contacts with persons with mental illness: the impact of CIT. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2010; 37(4): 302–317. pmid:19705277
- 10. Steadman HJ, Deane MW, Borum R, Morrissey JP. Comparing outcomes of major models of police responses to mental health emergencies. Psychiatr Serv. 2000; 51(5): 645–649. pmid:10783184
- 11. Franz S, Borum R. Crisis Intervention Teams may prevent arrests of people with mental illnesses. Police Practice and Research. 2011; 12(3): 265–272.
- 12. Borum R, Deane MW, Steadman HJ, Morrissey J. Police perspectives on responding to mentally ill people in crisis: perceptions of program effectiveness. Behav Sci Law. 1998; 16(4): 393–405. pmid:9924765
- 13. Deane MW, Steadman HJ, Borum R, Veysey BM, Morrissey JP. Emerging partnerships between mental health and law enforcement. Psychiatr Serv. 1999; 50(1): 99–101. pmid:9890588
- 14. Draine J, Blank Wilson A, Pogorzelski W. Limitations and Potential in Current Research on Services for People with Mental Illness in the Criminal Justice System. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. 2007; 45(3/4): 159–177.
- 15. Dupont R, Cochran S. Police response to mental health emergencies—barriers to change. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2000; 28(3): 338–344. pmid:11055533
- 16. Schneider RD. Mental health courts and diversion programs: A global survey. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2010; 33(4): 201–206. pmid:20797790
- 17. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009; 6(7): e1000097. pmid:19621072
- 18. Cohen J. A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1960; 20(1): 37–46.
- 19.
Cochrane Statistical Methods Group, Cochrane Bias Methods Group. Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.; 2008. p. 187–241.
- 20. Dewa CS, Loong D, Bonato S, Joosen MCW. The effectiveness of return-to-work interventions that incorporate work-focused problem-solving skills for workers with sickness absences related to mental disorders: a systematic literature review. BMJ Open. 2015; 51–11.
- 21. Compton MT, Bakeman R, Broussard B, Hankerson-Dyson D, Husbands L, Krishan S, et al. The police-based crisis intervention team (CIT) model: II. Effects on level of force and resolution, referral, and arrest. Psychiatr Serv. 2014; 65(4): 523–529. pmid:24382643
- 22. Scott RL. Evaluation of a mobile crisis program: effectiveness, efficiency, and consumer satisfaction. Psychiatr Serv. 2000; 51(9): 1153–1156. pmid:10970919
- 23. Teller JL, Munetz MR, Gil KM, Ritter C. Crisis intervention team training for police officers responding to mental disturbance calls. Psychiatr Serv. 2006; 57(2): 232–237. pmid:16452701
- 24. Watson AC, Ottati VC, Draine J, Morabito M. CIT in context: the impact of mental health resource availability and district saturation on call dispositions. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2011; 34(4): 287–294. pmid:21820177
- 25. Ritter C, Teller JL, Marcussen K, Munetz MR, Teasdale B. Crisis intervention team officer dispatch, assessment, and disposition: Interactions with individuals with severe mental illness. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2011; 34(1): 30–38. pmid:21138782
- 26. Earl F, Cocksedge K, Rheeder B, Morgan K, Palmer J. Neighbourhood outreach: a novel approach to Liaison and Diversion. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology. 2015; 5573–585.
- 27. Steadman HJ, Morrissette D. Police responses to persons with mental illness: Going beyond CIT training. Psychiatric Services. 2016; 67(10): 1054–1056. pmid:27524373
- 28. Mulay AL, Vayshenker B, West ML, Kelly E. Crisis Intervention Training and Implicit Stigma Toward Mental Illness: Reducing Bias Among Criminal Justice Personnel. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. 2016; 15(4): 369–381.
- 29. Nissen SB, Magidson T, Gross K, Bergstrom CT. Publication bias and the canonization of false facts. eLife. 2016; 5(e21451): 1–19.
- 30. Franco A, Malhotra N, Simonovits G. Social science. Publication bias in the social sciences: unlocking the file drawer. Science. 2014; 345(6203): 1502–1505. pmid:25170047
- 31. Martin JLR, Perez V, Sacristan M, Alvarez E. Is grey literature essential for a better control of publication bias in psychiatry? An example from three meta-analyses of schizophrenia. European Psychiatry. 2005; 20550–553.